ITU-T Rapporteur and Editor Tutorial
(Geneva, 28 – 29 November 2011 )
Decision-Making in ITU-T,
including AAP and TAP
Gary Fishman
Pearlfisher International
TSAG Chairman (1996-2008)
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
Outline
Types of ITU-T decision-making
“soft” and “hard” criteria
Traditional Approval Process
WTSA Resolution 1, Section 9
Alternative Approval Process
Recommendation ITU-T A.8
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
2
Decision Making
There are many kinds of decisions
made within ITU-T
The rules of procedure sometimes
indicate quantitative approval criteria
but not always
The following slides list various ITU-T
decision-making mechanisms
In general, decision-making avoids
formal “voting” in ITU-T
First instance I’ve seen in >25 years
recently occurred in SG15
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
3
Decision Making
Important note: ITU is a United
Nations Specialized Agency – ONLY
Member States have the right to vote
However, agreement of Sector
Members is important for approval of
technical Recommendations
The rules allow for a public/private
partnership, while respecting MS rights
Most decisions, but not all of them,
are made on the basis of consensus
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
4
Decision-Making in ITU-T
Decisions to enable progression of work
“Soft” criteria
SG agrees to start new work
SG decides to establish a Focus Group
SG determines that a draft
Recommendation is sufficiently mature…
SG reaches consent that a draft technical
Recommendation is sufficiently mature …
SG selects the relevant approval procedure
by consensus
TSAG endorses Questions proposed by SG
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
5
Decision-Making in ITU-T
Definitive decisions for approvals
Quantifiable (“hard”) criteria
70% affirmative of the MSs responding to
Formal Consultation to authorize a study
group to approve a Recommendation
Unopposed agreement of MSs present to
approve Recommendation under the
Traditional Approval Process (TAP)
No more than 1 MS present being in
opposition to approve Rec under the
Alternative Approval Process (AAP)
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
6
Approach to decision
making
From the examples, we see that some
decisions are quantifiable and some
are not
This has been carefully, and successfully,
designed in this manner to have
flexibility so work can progress (decides,
agrees, determines, etc), but to have
specificity when final decisions are taken
(unopposed agreement, no more than
one MS, etc)
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
7
Observations (1)
In general, the day-to-day work progresses
by consensus among the participants
Chairman’s job is to create an environment
that allows the meeting to find consensus
Resolution of disagreements is generally
achieved by those directly involved, with
reporting back to parent group
Consensus is the foundation of global
standardization
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
8
Observations (2)
Avoid putting a sovereign Member State
in a position that forces it to state
support or opposition until it is ready to
do so, e.g., open voting, show of hands,
direct query
Elegant solution is “unopposed
agreement”
Chair can help by carefully crafted
questions to move the meeting ahead:
“Is there any support/opposition to the
proposal?”
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
9
ITU-T Recommendation Approval
There are two methods for approving
Recommendations between WTSAs
Traditional Approval Process (TAP) for
Recommendations having policy or
regulatory implications
Member States (MS) have final
decision
Alternative Approval Process (AAP) for all
other Recommendations
MSs and SMs both fully participate
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
10
ITU-T Recommendation Approval
TAP is described in WTSA
Resolution 1, Section 9
Key terminology, unique to TAP, is
summarized in Figure 9.1 – TAP
sequence of events
AAP is described in
Recommendation ITU-T A.8
Key terminology, unique to AAP, is
summarized in Figure 1 – AAP
sequence of events
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
11
Outline
Types of ITU-T decision-making
“soft” and “hard” criteria
Traditional Approval Process
WTSA Resolution 1, Section 9
Alternative Approval Process
Recommendation ITU-T A.8
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
12
TAP Process Chart
4 weeks
3 months minimum
maximum
(Note 1)
1 month
minimum
7 working days (see 9.4.1)
SG
meeting
Consultation period
SG or WP
meeting
SG or WP
determination
(Note 2)
Edited text
available
(Note 4)
Chairman's
request
(Note 3)
Text distributed
(Note 7)
Director's
announcement
(Note 5)
and
Director's request
(Note 6)
SG
decision
(Note 9)
Deadline for
Member States' replies
(Note 8)
Director's
notification
(Note 10)
Res.1(08)_F9.1
WTSA Resolution 1, Figure 9.1
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
13
Main steps in TAP (1)
SG DETERMINATION (that work is
sufficiently mature)
Can be done by SG or WP
Director’s ANNOUNCEMENT (of intent
to seek approval at next SG
meeting)
Director’s REQUEST (for MSs to
approve request that SG can decide
on approval; 70% affirmative
required)
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
14
Main steps in TAP (2)
TEXT DISTRIBUTED (at least 1
month before SG meeting)
DECISION meeting
Approval requires unopposed
agreement of the MSs present
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
15
Other steps in the process (1)
SMs, MSs, Associates and liaisons can
propose changes for the DECISION
meeting’s consideration of the
DETERMINED text
Editorial corrections and amendments
not affecting the substance may be
accepted
A Recommendation Summary is
required
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
16
Other steps in the process (2)
If there are major changes, the SG
should defer approval to another
meeting, EXCEPT
The SG can proceed with approval if
SG Chairman, in consultation with
TSB, considers that changes are
reasonable for MSs not present and
that the proposed text is stable
This is a very, very normal occurrence
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
17
Other steps in the process (3)
A MS that does not want to oppose
approval but has a concern, can have
its concern noted in meeting report
and in the Recommendation
If a MS requests more time to
consider its position, the “4-week
rule” allows that MS to inform TSB of
its disapproval within 4 weeks of the
meeting
No reply from that MS means no
objection, and the Rec is approved
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
18
Outline
Types of ITU-T decision-making
“soft” and “hard” criteria
Traditional Approval Process
WTSA Resolution 1, Section 9
Alternative Approval Process
Recommendation ITU-T A.8
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
19
Evolution of the approval process
for dramatic improvement
2001: After adoption by a SG, Recs
that do not require formal
consultation of the MSs are
considered as approved
Only applies to Recs that do not
have policy or regulatory
implications, or for which there is a
doubt
This is known as the Alternative
Approval Process (AAP)
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
20
AAP Process Chart
Approved
LC
4 weeks
(a)
4
SG or
WP
meeting
(1)
Edited
Director's
text announcement
for LC and posting
(2)
for LC
(3)
3 weeks
(b)
(c)
Comment
resolution
(7)
(a)
9
LC: Last Call
AR: Additional Review
AR
3 weeks
(b)
Edited Director's
text announcement
for AR and posting
(8)
for AR
(10)
Approved
Director's
SG
announcement
Meeting
and posting
(6)
(5)
(b)
Approved
11
(a)
Director's
notification
and publication
(see ITU-T. A.11)
(12)
A.8(08)_F01
Recommendation ITU-T A.8, Figure 1
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
21
Main steps in AAP (1)
CONSENT (that work is sufficiently
mature)
Can be done by SG or WP
Same as DETERMINATION in TAP
Director’s AAP ANNOUNCEMENT of
LAST CALL (review before approval)
Posted on the 1st and 16th of every month
LAST CALL (LC) is 4 weeks
MSs, SMs and Associates can submit LC
comments
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
22
Main steps in AAP (2)
If there are no comments (other than
typographical corrections) the Rec is
approved
If there are any comments, including
“editorial” comments, SG Chairman
considers next step in Last Call Judgment
Consult with relevant experts and TSB
Address and attempt to resolve
comments
Provide new, revised text and report on
comment resolution attempts
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
23
Main steps in AAP (3)
Depending on calendar, Chairman has
a choice to get the fastest approval:
(1) Post revised text for an Additional
Review (AR) of 3-weeks,
MSs and SMs can comment
This is the most common course
If there are no comments in 3 weeks,
the Recommendation is approved; or
(2) Send draft revised Rec and
comments to next SG meeting
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
24
Main steps in AAP (4)
If there are AR comments, Chairman
considers next steps in Additional
Review Judgment
Changes are only typographical; Rec
is approved
Comments are substantive or
“editorial”; draft Rec and all
comments are sent to the next SG
meeting
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
25
Main steps in AAP (5)
At SG meeting, if there are major
changes, the SG should defer
approval to another meeting, EXCEPT
The SG can proceed with approval if
the SG Chairman, in consultation with
TSB, considers that changes are
reasonable for MSs not present and
that the proposed text is stable
This is a very, very normal occurrence
Only about 2% of AAP Recs even get
to the SG stage
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
26
Main steps in AAP (6)
Draft Rec may have gone through
many changes at the SG, causing a
new MS concern:
If a MS states that the Rec now has
policy or regulatory implications, the
Rec can be moved back to the
beginning of TAP or AAP
SG does not make a DECISION at
this meeting
SG picks path that will ensure best
progress towards a decision
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
27
Main steps in AAP (7)
If there is unopposed agreement of
MSs and SMs present, Rec is
approved
If there continues to be any
objection, the Chair asks only MSs
present if there is objection to
approval
Rec is not approved if there is more
than one MS objecting (i.e., 2 or more
MSs)
Rec is approved if 1 or no MSs object
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
28
AAP experience
About 65% of AAP Recs are approved
in LAST CALL with no comments
More than 85% of AAP Recs are
approved in LAST CALL
About 2% of AAP Recs need to go to
the SG DECISION meeting
Average time from CONSENT to
NOTIFICATION of approval is 9 weeks
Efficient management of the AAP
process is a key task for SG
Chairmen, Rapporteurs and Editors
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
29
Amendments and Corrigenda
Amendment to a published Rec:
Includes only the change or addition
If integral part of Rec: Approved using
the same approval process as the Rec
If not integral: agreed by SG
Corrigendum to published Rec:
Includes only the correction
Obvious correction: published by TSB
with concurrence of SG Chairman
Otherwise: same approval as for Rec
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
30
Implementer’s Guide and Revisions
Implementer’s Guide:
Historical record of identified defects with
their corrections since Rec was published
Agreed by SG, or by WP with concurrence
of SG Chairman
Eventually issued as Corr. or Rev.
Revision:
Full text of published Recommendation
with all approved changes, corrections,
additions
Same approval process as for Rec
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
31
Deletion of Recommendation
Deletion is considered on a case by
case basis
Recommendation has been superseded
or has become obsolete
Choices: Deletion by WTSA or between
WTSAs
Deletion by WTSA:
Upon decision of SG, Chair reports to
WTSA requesting deletion
WTSA acts as appropriate
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
32
Deletion of Recommendation - TAP
SG agrees to deletion by unopposed
agreement
Inform membership of proposed
deletion, including an explanatory
summary of the reasons, via
Circular
If no objection within 3 months,
deletion comes into force
In case of objection, refer back to the
SG
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
33
Deletion of Recommendation - AAP
SG agrees to deletion by unopposed
agreement of MSs and SMs present
If not achieved, then SG agrees to
deletion if no more than 1 MS present is
opposed
Inform membership of proposed
deletion, including explanatory
summary of the reasons, via Circular
If no objection from a MS or SM within
3 months, deletion comes into force
In case of objection, refer back to SG
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
34
Thank you
Mr. Gary Fishman
PEARLFISHER INTERNATIONAL
Tel: +1 732 778-9572
Fax: +1 732 583-3051
gryfishman@aol.com
Skype: gryfishman
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
35
Additional Information
WTSA Resolution 1 - Rules of procedure of
the ITU Telecommunication Standardization
Sector (ITU-T)
All languages, all formats
http://www.itu.int/pub/T-RES-T.1-2008/en
English, Word document
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/res/TRES-T.1-2008-MSW-E.doc
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
36
Additional Information
Recommendation ITU-T A.1- Work
methods for study groups of the ITU-T
All languages, all formats
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-A.1-200810I/en
English, Word document
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-A.1-200810I/dologin.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-A.1200810-I!!MSW-E&type=items
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
37
Additional Information
Recommendation ITU-T A.8- Alternative
approval process for new and revised ITU-T
Recommendations
All languages, all formats
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-A.8-200810I/en
English, Word document
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-A.8-200810I/dologin.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-A.8200810-I!!MSW-E&type=items
Geneva, 28-29 Nov 2011
Rapporteur/Editor Tutorial: Decision-Making
38